Revised Final Environmental Study Report (24 MB) - Gold Canyon ...

Page 35
1. General comment on Section 5.6: TFTO has misinterpreted the ESR. The ESR is stating that a
road changes the landscape and that the MNR has admitted that they do not fully understand
the implications of those changes. TFTO is also incorrect with regard to the sources used for the
caribou data. Two aerial surveys were completed (2011 and 2012) and data was received from
the MNR covering the dates of 1998-2012. Discussions regarding caribou are ongoing with the
species at risk biologist from Red lake.
2. Page number should be 53.
3. General comment on Section 5.7: Monitoring plans will be developed in consultation with
regulatory agencies and stakeholders once the EA is reviewed and approved. Stipulations and
requirements will be tied to the permitting of the access corridor through the EA process.
4. This type of project is common and proposed mitigation measures are well-established and
proven over decades.
5. GCU intends to have a long-term presence in the region and wishes to develop a working group
to facilitate future discussions regarding the Springpole Gold Project. See page of the ESR 31,
items 1, 7, and 8.
Gold Canyon Resources Inc.
Response to TFTO Submission for Springpole Access Corridor Final ESR
April 2013 Schedule 2/- 39-